2001

Spring, Vol. 3, No. 2

Editor’s Commentary on This Issue
– Duane B. Graddy, Managing Editor

Feature Article

Middle Tennessee Values
– James Buchanan, George Mason University

Empirical & Theoretical Articles

The Minimum Wage Once Again
– Walter Block, Loyola University of New Orleans

Scholastic Aptitude and Studying For an Exam:
Input Substitution in Grade Production
– Steven B. Isbell, Tennessee Technological University

Conference Papers

The Implementation of Higher Education Web Classes;
Technological Issues, Concerns and Potential Problems
– Jerry Plummer, Austin Peay State University

Graduate Student Papers

The Dunlop Commission:
Missed Opportunity or Failed Hegemonic Project
– James Earhart, University of Missouri
Reviewer’s Comment – Charles L. Baum

Universal Service in Tennessee:
A Pre-Competition, Pre-Lifeline Assessment
– Joseph Gerald Cessna, Jr., Middle Tennessee State University

Reviewer’s Comment
– Reuben Kyle

Fall, Vol. 3, No. 3

Editor’s Commentary on This Issue
– Duane B. Graddy, Managing Editor

Empirical & Theoretical Articles

Debt-for-Nature Swaps and the Coase Theorem
– Bradley K. Hobbs

Cash Flow Implied Interest Rate: A Unified Approach
– Kavous Ardalan and Chester Kobos

Views on Economic Education

On Line Courses: Universities and Servers:
A Fragile Consortium
– Jerry Plummer, Roger W. Clark, Vicky Langston, and Tommy Meadows

Meeting Proceedings

A Case for Multifaceted Reforms in Public Higher Education Using Performance Based Incentives
– Vicky C. Langston

Money Tricks
– Walton Padelford

Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext as a Learning Environment in Economics:
A Pedagogical Note
– Duane B. Graddy, John T. Lee, and J. Douglas Timmons

International Trade as a Source of Employment in Tennessee
– Douglas P. Dotterweich and F. Steb Hipple

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Higher Education in Tennessee
– F. Steb Hipple

Notes

The Academic Transformation of HRM in China
– Richard L. Hannah

 

Editor’s Comment

– Duane B. Graddy

Welcome to the Spring 2001 edition of the Journal of the Tennessee Economics Association. The articles in this issue deal with economic concepts and methodology as well as focusing on classroom pedagogy. The Journal is very happy to feature a brief article by Nobel Laureate James Buchanan based on a graduation address delivered at Middle Tennessee State University.

In the empirical and theoretical section of this issue, Walter Block and Steven Isbell provide articles on the minimum wage controversy and a production model of grades in the principles of economics. Block revisits the minimum wage issue in the context of a critical review of the works of David Card and Alan B. Krueger. Isbell uses a Cobb-Douglas production function in a rather unique way to explain the grading results for a principles of economics course.

One paper was submitted from our last conference. In this paper, Jerry Plummer discusses the technological and pedagogical aspects of providing web-based classes in higher education. Plummer focuses on both the positive and negative aspects of online learning. He is particularly concerned with the issue of security and course integrity.

The Journal is pleased to have two graduate student papers along with faculty comments. Our hope is that this interplay between students and faculty will provide a dialogue that is useful for others in developing their research ideas.

Thank you for your continued support of the Journal.
 

Reviewer’s Comment 2011: Comments on “The Dunlop Commission: Missed Opportunity or Failed Hegemonic Project” by James Earhart, University of Missouri

– Charles L. Baum

The author notes the importance of a cooperative relationship between management and labor and then focuses on how management seeks to use cooperative labor-management programs to undermine labor’s power. The author begins by explaining how section 8 (a) (2) of the Wagner Act has limited companies from setting up cooperative labor-management programs to jointly make decisions and solve problems. (Such programs violate section 8 (a) (2) because they act as company-dominated unions, replacing the need for an independent, labor-controlled union.) However, the author cautions against liberalizing section 8 (a) (2) of the Wagner Act, arguing that management would respond by essentially setting up company-dominated labor-management teams. The author fears that these teams would be unilaterally controlled by management. The author notes that his concern about cooperative labor-management programs is supported by worker dissatisfaction with labor-management decision-making teams and by management’s endorsement of the TEAM Act, which would abolish section 8 (a) (2) of the Wagner Act. Further, the author suggests that management has been unwilling to make the compromises necessary to make labor-management cooperative programs feasible under the law. The author concludes that labor’s only solution is to defend the Wagner Act as it currently stands, even if this means an end to cooperative programs.

While it is noteworthy to defend section 8 (a) (2) of the Wagner Act to preserve the function of the union, I believe that the author goes too far. For example, I believe that the author is too quick to dismiss a compromise suggested by Darien (discussed on page 9). Darien proposes to liberalize section 8 (a) (2) to allow labor-management teams if (i) workers have full access to company information, (ii) workers get to select who will represent them, and (iii) management reprisals against workers are prevented. This sounds to me like a first attempt at a compromise. I think the author also goes to far when he suggests that management’s proposed cooperative programs would further increase the United States’ inability to compete economically on the global level (page 21). I would argue the opposite – that the U.S.’s ability to compete will be enhanced by increased cooperation between labor and management, and the proposed labor-management decision-making programs are an attempt to increase this cooperation. Further, the author argues that management’s cooperative programs are an attempt to ensure that their (management’s) domination is maintained and reinforced (page 22). On the contrary, labor’s reluctance to participate in such voluntary cooperation programs hints that it is they who seek to maintain the status quo in the continuing labor-management power struggle. While a strict interpretation of section 8 (a) (2) will ensure a large role for the union in the future, I believe that workers would be best served by cooperative programs that increase economic productivity and wages, even if such programs make unions obsolete.
 

Editor’s Comment

– Duane B. Graddy

Welcome to the Fall 2001 edition of the Journal for Economics Educators. Yes, we have a new name. At last Spring’s meeting of the Tennessee Economics Association the membership voted to change the Journal’s title. The new title was thought to be more reflective of the Journal’s objectives and content. In addition, the revised title has greater identity and appeal across a wider audience. A complete description of the Journal’s format and content objectives is included in the most recent edition of Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Economics and Finance.

The current issue has a variety of articles dealing with economic concepts and methodology as well as classroom pedagogy. In the empirical and theoretical section of this issue, Bradley Hobbs and Kavous Ardalan/Chester Kobos present articles on debt-for-nature-swaps and the interest rate implied in discounted cash flows. Hobbs discusses the use of debt-for-nature-swaps in reducing the debt burden of less developed countries. The swap arrangements are described in the context of Coase’s market-based approach to the issue of externalities. Ardalan’s paper synthesizes several aspects of cash flow analysis in effort to make them more accessible to students of economics and finance. In his approach, the implied rate of return inherent in cash flows is viewed from both sides of a financial contract.

The Views on Economic Education section includes a paper by Jerry Plummer, Roger Clark, Vicky Langston, and Tommy Meadows. In this paper the authors address the very important and timely issue of who owns the content of online courses developed by faculty members at colleges and universities. The authors see this issue as an impetus for changing the traditional relationship between faculty members, students, and the university.

Five conference papers from our annual meeting in Cookeville, Tennessee (hosted by Tennessee Technological University) are included in the proceedings section. These papers address several issues pertaining to the structural reform of higher education in Tennessee and new approaches to the teaching of economics and finance. The papers by Langston and Hipple present a lively debate on the role of externalities as a justification for the state funding of higher education in Tennessee. Dotterweich and Hipple examine the impact of the Asian financial crisis of 1997 on employment in Tennessee. They conclude that while the Asian financial crisis impacted the growth rate of employment in Tennessee, the effects were not uniform across the state’s metropolitan areas. The papers by Padelford and Graddy, Lee, and Timmons describe new methods for explaining topics in monetary economics. Money Tricks is a rhetorical approach to presenting such concepts as Gresham’s Law, foreign exchange rates, and currency devaluation. Graddy, Lee, and Timmons use an example from monetary economics to illustrate the application of cognitive flexibility theory to the development of a course web interface. This case-based approach to online instruction focuses on the student’s ability to transfer knowledge from the conceptual realm to actual economic events.

We are making progress with the Journal, but we need your continued support. If you would like to act as a referee, please send your areas of interest to dgraddy@mtsu.edu. In addition, please plan to attend the Association’s annual meeting in Murfreesboro, Tennessee on April 13, 2002. Your participation is essential to our continued success.

You are encouraged to submit your articles to the address below. Also the Journal actively solicits quality papers from graduate students. Graduate student papers are reviewed by a referee (s) and the referee’s report is published along with the student’s paper. Students must agree to this procedure for their papers to be published in the Journal. This section of the Journal provides valuable feedback to graduate students about how their work is assessed by professionals in the field. The Submission Guidelines outline the Journal’s format. Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the Journal’s editorial policies. Thank you again for your continued support.

Submission Guidelines

Authors should consider the following guidelines before submitting their manuscripts to the Journal.

1. Articles submitted to the Journal should be in a Word format with the figures, tables, abstract, and text all in one file. The preferred method of submission is by email to dgraddy@mtsu.edu. The alternative method is to include the manuscript on a 3.5″ diskette. Mail the diskette to Duane B. Graddy, Managing Editor, Box 361, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132. No paper copy please.
2. As in the past, the Journal is seeking articles that emphasize text-based content rather than detailed mathematical or statistical proofs. Quantitative expression should be in the nature of demonstrating the applicability of the content to teaching/learning or for stating general functional relationships. Reviewers will judge submissions more on their communication of economic content than on their use of sophisticated quantitative proofs. Nevertheless, statistical tests of classroom experiments are sought and are welcome.
3. Submissions oriented toward current economic events should reflect sophisticated interpretations of economic fundamentals. The Journal welcomes a full range of K-12 and higher education economic education topics; particularly with respect to interactive lesson plans, principles of economics tutorials, student learning styles, classroom tips, multimedia applications, and experimental economics.
4. Submissions should reflect careful editing by the author and adherence to the Journal’s format. The editor reserves the right to make minor editorial and format changes without contacting the author. Any material changes will have to be approved by the author(s).
5. Submissions are subject to double-blind review. The reviewers can recommend publication “as is,” publication with modifications, or outright rejection.
6. Submitting an article to the Journal implies that the manuscript has not been submitted elsewhere, and will not be submitted elsewhere unless the author has formally withdrawn the paper from Journal consideration.
7. Potential contributors are alerted to the philosophy inherent in the production of the Journal that any article is publicly available and subject to unlimited reprints.

---